Intl, Bro. of Teamsters, Local 729

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1967

167 N.L.R.B. 147 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

INTL. BRO . OF TEAMSTERS , LOCAL 729 147
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local No.
729 (Penntruck Company, Inc.) and Henry
Dailey. Case 14-CB-1478
August 21, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On June 12, 1967, Trial Examiner George J. Bott
issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Trial Examiner's Decision, the Respondent's ex-
ceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom-
mended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local No. 729, East St.
Louis, Illinois, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex-
aminer 's Recommended Order, as herein modified:
Delete from paragraph 2(c) that part thereof
which reads "to be furnished" and substitute "on
forms provided."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE J. BOTT, Trial Examiner: Upon a charge of
unfair labor practices filed by Henry Dailey on
December 12, 1966, against International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No. 729 (herein the Union or Respond-
ent), the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issued a complaint and notice of hearing on
March 14, 1967, alleging violations of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein
called the Act. Respondent filed an answer admitting cer-
tain allegations of the complaint but denying the commis-
sion of any unfair labor practices, and a hearing was held
before me on April 11, 1967, in St. Louis, Missouri. Sub-
sequent to the hearing, General Counsel filed a brief
which I have considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my obser-
vation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Penntruck Company, Inc., herein called the Employer,
maintains its principal office and place of business in
Columbus, Ohio, and maintains other terminals in Il-
linois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio where it is engaged in
the loading, unloading, and delivery of piggyback trailers.
During the year ending December 31, 1966, the Em-
ployer derived a gross revenue in excess of $500,000 of
which in excess of $50,000 was derived from services
performed for interstate common carriers; during the
same period, the Employer performed services at its East
St. Louis, Illinois, facility, for various enterprises outside
Illinois , valued in excess of $50,000. During the year end-
ing December 31, 1966, the Employer derived a gross
revenue in excess of $50,000 from the operations of its
East St. Louis, Illinois , terminal, for services performed
for interstate common carriers operating between and
among the various States of the United States.
The Employer is now, and has been at all material
times herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
The Respondent excepts to the Trial Examiner 's credibility findings.
It is the Board 's established policy, however, not to overrule a Trial Ex-
aminer's resolutions with respect to credibility unless, as is not the case
here , the preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB
544, enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (C.A. 3).
Henry Dailey, the Charging Party, a long-time member
of the Union, has been employed by the Employer for a
number of years and is covered by a collective-bargaining
contract between the Employer and the Union which in-
cludes among its terms provisions for health and welfare
benefits, including health, life, and accident insurance, for
the employees of the Employer. Under the contracts the
167 NLRB No. 21
910-5410-70-11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer is required to contribute a certain amount of
money for each employee covered by the agreement.'
In September 1966, certain members of Respondent
Union preferred charges against Dailey based on their be-
lief that he testified against them, and for the Employer,
in a grievance hearing held before the grievance board of
Teamsters Joint Council No. 65 in Springfield, Illinois,
thus putting their jobs in jeopardy.
On September 15, 1966, Oran Zaricor, president of
Respondent Union, sent Dailey a copy of the charges
preferred against him, and notified him that a hearing
would be held on such charges before the executive board
of the Union on September 27, 1966.
On September 27, a hearing was conducted by the ex-
ecutive board of Respondent concerning the charges
preferred against Dailey by the members of Respondent.
Following the hearing the executive board of Respond-
ent Union found Dailey guilty as charged and fined him
$250. On October 7, 1966, Zaricor notified Dailey in
writing of the decision of the Union's executive board.
Dailey visited Respondent's office 3 days after he
received notice that he had been fined. He found Harry
Bailey, Respondent's secretary-treasurer, and Business
Agents McIntosh and Scheumann there, and, without ad-
dressing himself to anyone in particular, announced that
he had lost 3 days' pay because of the fine since he had no
moneydo pay it. Dailey was apparently in error about the
Union causing him to lose work because he said that
Bailey replied that "we cannot stop you from working."
According to Dailey, however, but there is a dispute
about this, Bailey added that "you can work without in-
surance if you don't pay the fine." McIntosh commented
that Dailey had 90 days to do it. Dailey protested, in ef-
fect, that he had a legal and moral obligation to testify at
the grievance hearing which led to the charges against
him, but Bailey just "shrugged "
Dailey also said that he informed Bailey that he in-
tended to consult an attorney and that Bailey answered
that he "could go ahead and see one," but "probably
there will be other charges brought out in the process."
Dailey paid his fine at the union office in early
November 1966. He testified without contradiction that
he saw Scheumann and Zaricor, Respondent's president,
and told them that he wanted to pay the fine in order to
"keep [his] insurance good."
Harry Bailey testified that there was a conversation
with Dailey at the union office, but he denied that he told
Dailey that unless he paid the fine he would "work
without insurance." He also denied that he said that if
Dailey retained an attorney "he would be brought up on
charges before the local union ." Bailey maintained that he
never threatened to deprive Dailey of insurance benefits
if he failed to pay the fine which had been imposed on
him, and he explained that "Local 729 couldn't do this"
because the Union doesn't control the decisions of the
"health and welfare plan."
B. Analysis and Conclusions
I credit the Charging Party, Henry Dailey, and I find
that Respondent's agent, Bailey, in the presence of two
other union officials, told Dailey, on or about October 10,
1966, that he would lose the protection of the insurance
provisions of the collective-bargaining contract which
covered him unless he paid the fine which the Union had
imposed on him. Dailey testified in a straightforward and
convincing manner. His account of the meeting with
Bailey and the other union officials was given without any
apparent attempt to embellish the affair even though it
was clear to me that the incident had vividly impressed
him. His testimony, although low-keyed and restrained,
was positive and direct. Bailey, on the other hand, did not
seem too certain about what was said when Dailey visited
the union office, and although he conceded that a conver-
sation did occur, he never gave its details. His explana-
tion, in substance and effect, that he could not have
threatened Dailey because Respondent was incapable of
carrying out such a threat seemed lame, and, moreover,
although other union officals were present in the office at
the time, they were not called to corroborate him Finally,
when Dailey paid his fine a month later he told Scheu-
mann and Zaricor that he was doing it to preserve his in-
surance. This is uncontradicted, and Respondent's
silence on this point supports Dailey's testimony that the
earlier threat was made.
It has been long established that benefits derived from
an insurance program under a collective-bargaining
agreement are emoluments of value accrued from the em-
ployment relationship and are within the phrase, "condi-
tions of employment."2 It is also clear that a union
restrains and coerces employees in the exercise of their
Section 7 rights, within the meaning of and in violation of
Section 8(b)(I)(A) of the Act, by threatening them with
loss of insurance benefits enjoyed under a collective-bar-
gaining contract unless they pay union fines 3
I find and conclude that Respondent, by threatening
Dailey with the loss of his insurance benefits if he did not
pay the fine imposed on him by the Union, violated Sec-
tion 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act.4
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent Union set forth in sec-
tion III, above, occurring in connection with the Em-
ployer's operations described in section 1, above, have a
close, intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
i The funds to which the Employer makes his contributions are com-
mon-law trusts subject to the provisions of Sec 302 of the Act Said trusts
are jointly administered by a board of trustees consisting of an equal
number of management and labor representatives
2 Inland Steel Company v N L R B , 170 F 2d 247, 250-251 (C A 7),
cert denied 336 U S 960 , W W Cross and Company, Inc v N L R B,
174 F 2d 875, 878 (C A 1)
3 Local 479 , Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(Javmar Ruby, Inc ), 151 N LRB 555, Anialgamated Local 286, United
Auto Workers, 110 NLRB 371
4 The finding would be the same whether the Union could, in fact, carry
out the threat Local 511, St Louis Offset Printing Union, AFL-CIO
(Mendle Press), 130 NLRB 324, fn I Moreover, it appears from the
testimony of Respondent's president, Zancor, that the Union does exer-
cise some control over the processing of an employee's application for
benefits
INTL. BRO. OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 729 149
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Union has engaged in
the unfair labor practices set forth above, it will be recom-
mended that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer-
tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. I have found that the Respondent threatened
Dailey with loss of insurance benefits in violation of the
Act. Since it appears that Dailey paid the fine levied on
him as a consequence of and in the context of the illegal
restraint and coercion imposed on him by the Respond-
ent, it will also be recommended that Respondent reim-
burse Dailey the amount of the fine with interest thereon
at 6 percent per annum.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, and upon the en-
tire record in the case , I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By threatening employee Henry Dailey with loss of
insurance benefits unless he paid the fine imposed on him
by the Union, Respondent restrained and coerced, and is
restraining and coercing , employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , and did engage
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(A) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
signed by Respondent Union ' s authorized representative,
shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days
thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material.
(d) Furnish to the Regional Director signed copies of
the aforesaid notice for posting by Penntruck Company,
Inc., in places where notices to employees in the unit
covered by Respondent's labor contract are customarily
posted. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Re-
gional Director , shall after being signed by the Respond-
ent, as indicated , be forthwith returned to the Regional
Director for disposition by him.
(e) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20
days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have
been taken to comply herewith.6
' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice In the further
event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap-
peals Enforcing an Order " shall be substituted for the words "a Decision
and Order "
M1 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read " Notify said Regional Director,
in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order , what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith "
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclu-
sions of law , and upon the entire record in the case, it is
recommended that Respondent , International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Hel-
pers of America , Local No. 729, its officers, agents, and
representatives , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees of Penntruck Company,
Inc., or any other employer within the jurisdiction of
Respondent , with loss of insurance benefits enjoyed by
them as a condition of employment for failing to pay fines
imposed by it.
(b) In any like or related manner , restraining or coerc-
ing said employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such rights
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership
in a labor organization as a condition of employment as
authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, as modified by
the Labor-Management Repbrting and Disclosure Act of
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Notify Henry Dailey, in writing, that it will not
threaten him with loss of insurance benefits for failing to
pay union fines.
(b) Immediately reimburse Henry Dailey for the
amount of the fine which Respondent illegally exacted
from him to the extent and in the manner set forth in "The
Remedy" section of this Decision.
(c) Post at the Respondent Union's business office
and meeting halls, copies of the attached notice marked
"Appendix."5 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 14, after being duly
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
NO. 729, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF PENNTRUCK
COMPANY, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex-
aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act , as amended , we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT threaten employees of Penntruck
Company, inc., or of any other employer within our
jurisdiction , with loss of insurance benefits enjoyed
by them as a condition of employment for failing to
pay fines imposed on them by this Union.
WE WILL notify Henry Dailey that we will not
threaten him with loss of his insurance benefits for
failing to pay union fines.
WE WILL reimburse Henry Dailey for the amount
of the fine imposed upon him by the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any other like or related manner
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , except to
the extent that such rights may be affected by a valid
agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL No. 729
(Labor Organization)
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dated By defaced, or covered by any other material.
(Representative ) (Title ) If members or employees have any question concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions, they
may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Of-
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive fice, 1040 Boatmen's Bank Building , 314 North Broad-
days from the date of posting and must not be altered, way, St . Louis, Missouri 63102, Telephone 622-4167.